Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science

I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.

When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.

The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.

Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.

Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)

Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.

This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.

Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?

A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.

Natural oscillations affect the distribution of heat in earth's system. Although they may have a minor affect on the total heat within earth's system, we must remember its an oscillation...after a positive phase and a negative phase, the earth's total heat content is returned to original. Causing NO long term warming NOR cooling.

Michael, when did I say the earth is cooling? When did I say co2 doesn't cause warming? When did I say man isn't contributing?

....that's what I thought.

When I post I stress making arguments only on the facts that are set in stone. I don't attempt to make claims which aren't supported by mounds evidence. The simple reason being is that in the gw debate, once someone sees you write something not totally backed in science, they will ignore you and write you off as an idiot.

I don't want that. I don't want anything to do with that. I want to be able to debate with people on equal terms without them having any prejudice against my posting. If that means saying, "the total effect of all of co2s feedback loops hasn't been proven to be warming or cooling," then so be it.

I do believe that there is likely a greater warming effect through the feedback loops. However, unless you can find the mounds of conclusive evidence, I'm not going to try and force it on Snowlover. Instead, I'll just prove him wrong.

I'm not really convinced that this graph demonstrates anything. An R-squared value of 0.26 indicates a very weak correlation between temperature and cloud cover and, it seems to me, concluding that an increase in temperature results in a decrease in cloud cover would be an equally valid interpretation of the data.

You are correct. It could be, if one were only interpreting this data as such. But we know that this is not the case, as this is not what happens in physics. As I have said several times now on this blog...

--------Warming would create INCREASED WATER VAPOUR. When it is warmer, a solid turns into a liquid. This is indisputable, and only cranks would try and argue this point. When it gets warmer still, water turns into a gas known as water vapour. So therefore, Warming creates increased amounts of Water Vapour.

However, as I have repeatedly said, the Water Vapour is lost due to cloud formation!

Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation

-------

So because increased Water Vapour is a feedback from co2, but is lost due to increased cloud formations, due to the increased water vapour. Therefore, we can not say that higher temperatures mean less clouds, as this is blatently false.

Weren't you the one saying that I need glasses? I wonder why that last graph looks different than all the others...

Look at the timescale. The last graph is in millions of years, wheras the other graphs are in thousands of years.

But it must be wrong, since it doesn't look anything like the others...

That's because I have never said that co2 was the reason for that cooling. I said that the effect of co2 is neutralized due to the feedbacks. I never said that the feedbacks will cause the effect of co2 to produce cooling.

However, the sun was in a very low solar minimum, not producing any solar wind to divert cosmic rays.

I believe the sun caused the Ice Age 450 million years ago, while the negative feedbacks of Carbon Dioxide helped neutralize the effect of increased co2 concentrations.

No I do not. I also believe that the sun and the cosmic rays play a huge role in the climate as well.

The Sun has had a remarkable correlation with temperatures- a much better correlation than Carbon Dioxide due to its feedbacks.

The Sun also has an even better correlation with Arctic Temperatures.

co2 levels were rising at much slower levels back in the 1850s, yet temperatures have been rising at a linear rate.

How would co2 create deforestation? If anything, higher concentrations of co2 would make more plant life grow faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

And plants help remove that co2 from the atmosphere.

The Increase in Parts per Million of Methane has decreased significantly, to near no trend.

So if Methane sinks from at least the oceans are supposed to occur with more co2, they have not been observed.

I hope that this long (and I agree, repetitous debate) has not produced any hard feelings. :)

I will say this now: I will not respond to your next post if you choose to respond to this one to end this debate, once and for all. :)

You're right, I did miss the millions. But since when were we able to accurately measure co2 and temps beyond 1 million years?

Oh yea, we can't. Graph is still flawed.

Co2 can create deforestation by altering rain patterns.

The total effect of Co2's feedbacks are still yet to be proven to be warming or cooling.

But while people should be allowed to also decide whether the Easter Bunny is real, or whether the Earth is only 4,000 years old, or whether magical invisible unicorns still roam the forests of Europe shooting gold coins from their sparkly nostrils, people making decisions that affect all of us--that is, politicians--should stick with valid empirical science, and not allow their non-science-based personal beliefs to influence or pervert the making of those decisions.

Would you agree? Just yes or no.

Since you didn't answer my question like I asked I won't answer yours like you asked.

non-science-based beliefs do not influence my decision. Neither does big oil. Trust me they aren't outside my house giving me money to say this. But government pays your vote and annoyance of this situation. If unicorns are out there then by all means Nea don't let anybody tell you they aren't real. It isn't my job to tell you they don't exist and it shouldn't be yelled upon by you that they are or aren't real it is somebody else's decision. NOT YOURS. You don't understand that at all until you do then you just won't understand.

Quoting TomTaylor:content/uploads/2010/11/robinsonchart.png" style="max-width: 501px; ">Could you list some more feedbacks that co2 creates that either you or me have not listed yet?

BR>Here's everything I found wrong with your arguments in that post

1. CO2 levels have never been 10 times higher than the present values.

Take your pick in whatever graph you'd like, none of them show co2 values ten times the present as you've been claiming

Weren't you the one saying that I need glasses? I wonder why that last graph looks different than all the others...

Look at the timescale. The last graph is in millions of years, wheras the other graphs are in thousands of years.

But it must be wrong, since it doesn't look anything like the others...

Quoting TomTaylor:2. Let's play along with CO2 being 10 times higher. You claim that's what caused the cooling at the time. That's a logical fallacy - false cause. You fail to explain how it's CO2's fault.

That's because I have never said that co2 was the reason for that cooling. I said that the effect of co2 is neutralized due to the feedbacks. I never said that the feedbacks will cause the effect of co2 to produce cooling.

However, the sun was in a very low solar minimum, not producing any solar wind to divert cosmic rays.

I believe the sun caused the Ice Age 450 million years ago, while the negative feedbacks of Carbon Dioxide helped neutralize the effect of increased co2 concentrations.

Quoting TomTaylor:3. You seem to believe CO2 and natural oscillations are the only thing which can dictate temperatures on earth.

No I do not. I also believe that the sun and the cosmic rays play a huge role in the climate as well.

The Sun has had a remarkable correlation with temperatures- a much better correlation than Carbon Dioxide due to its feedbacks.

The Sun also has an even better correlation with Arctic Temperatures.

Quoting TomTaylor:4. Temperatures began rising around 1850 accoding to your graphs. If you've ever taken a US history course, you would know that this is almost exactly when the industrial revolution began. (in the early 19th century around the 1830s and 1840s is when the revolution is said to have occurred).

co2 levels were rising at much slower levels back in the 1850s, yet temperatures have been rising at a linear rate.

Lately it seems that few people are providing links to graphs/information that they post, but whatever...

For clarity, I'm reprinting the caption for the graph below--it seems that the Hansen paper claims that this graph represents heat content of the top 2000m of the ocean.

Fig.14. (a) Estimated contributions to planetary energy imbalance in 1993-2008, and (b) in 2005-2010. Except for heat gain in the abyssal ocean and Southern Ocean, ocean heat change beneath the upper ocean (top 700 m for period 1993-2008, top 2000 m in period 2005-2010) is assumed small and not included. Data sources are the same as for Figs. 12 and 13 with discussion and references given in the text.

Note that the caption covers a second graph as well, the 2005-2010 graph is the one that was posted in № 503.

The top 700m ocean heat content seem unchanged within the margin of error over the last five years (See here), so is this implying that the 700m-2000m ocean has warmed? What are the margins of error there?

For anyone that reads the paper, it also refers back to Fig.12&13 as where the data from where the warming comes from. Those graph don't seem to show the 2005-2010 warming however, unless I'm missing something.

Anyway...I've read some of the Hansen paper, but I'm not sure when/if I'll have time to read it all--it's something like 50 pages long. I'll likely wait until other sites have a chance to digest it and read those. Maybe if others take the time, the few points I listed might be a good starting point for a discussion.

Clearly, this shows that clouds are a POSITIVE feedback, which by itself doubles the total forcing from CO2!

LOL

Have you heard of what an absolute value even is?

...of a real number a is the numerical value of a without regard to its sign. So, for example, the absolute value of 3 is 3, and the absolute value of -3 is also 3. The absolute value of a number may be thought of as its distance from zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_value

The feedback is represented as an absolute value.

Quoting MichaelSTL:Warming reduces cloud cover, which is just what has been observed, thus it is a positive feedback (in either direction; cooling = more clouds = more cooling; warming = less clouds = more warming)! No other way around it - clouds are a POSITIVE feedback, NOT a negative one (so is water vapor, which approximately doubles the CO2 forcing by itself, together with clouds the total forcing is increased by a factor of 5 times)!

Are you going to try and reverse basic physics now to try and support your claims? Warming would create INCREASED WATER VAPOUR. When it is warmer, a solid turns into a liquid. This is indisputable, and only cranks would try and argue this point. When it gets warmer still, water turns into a gas known as water vapour. So therefore, Warming creates increased amounts of Water Vapour.

However, as I have repeatedly said, the Water Vapour is lost due to cloud formation!!

Evaporation is caused when water is exposed to air and the liquid molecules turn into water vapor, which rises up and forms clouds.

As seen here, the Specific Humidity has not increased at all near the surface, (and this is NOAA data- h/t to cyclonebuster) which indicates that the Water Vapour has been lost due to cloud formations. This basically contradicts your whole entire fancy paragraph full of nothing.

Quoting MichaelSTL:This is exactly how I feel when I see the deniers post insane claims like that:

Should people have the right to decide whether or not man is creating warming?

Just yes or no.

Nothing more.

Yes. Of course they should.

But while people should be allowed to also decide whether the Easter Bunny is real, or whether the Earth is only 4,000 years old, or whether magical invisible unicorns still roam the forests of Europe shooting gold coins from their sparkly nostrils, people making decisions that affect all of us--that is, politicians--should stick with valid empirical science, and not allow their non-science-based personal beliefs to influence or pervert the making of those decisions.

Quoting Neapolitan:As soon as I see any of those re-assessments start pointing toward a cooling world, I'll worry about my bets. But so far that hasn't happened. And--silly denialist fantasies of an imminent ice age notwithstanding--there's absolutely nothing in science to indicate that it will in the future. Nothing.

What did the IPCC say in its first report about the oceans rising?

The posts you post make me laugh more and more each day.

You could almost start your own comedy show something Like Mauer or however you spell his name has. Even though there's only like 3 or 4 watchers of the show.

The start of the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum--a period of exceptional global warming about 55 million years ago--is marked by a prominent negative carbon isotope excursion that reflects a massive input of 13C-depleted ('light') carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system. It is often assumed that this carbon injection initiated the rapid increase in global surface temperatures and environmental change that characterize the climate perturbation, but the exact sequence of events remains uncertain. Here we present chemical and biotic records of environmental change across the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary from two sediment sections in New Jersey that have high sediment accumulation rates. We show that the onsets of environmental change (as recorded by the abundant occurrence ('acme') of the dinoflagellate cyst Apectodinium) and of surface-ocean warming (as evidenced by the palaeothermometer TEX86) preceded the light carbon injection by several thousand years. The onset of the Apectodinium acme also precedes the carbon isotope excursion in sections from the southwest Pacific Ocean and the North Sea, indicating that the early onset of environmental change was not confined to the New Jersey shelf. The lag of approximately 3,000 years between the onset of warming in New Jersey shelf waters and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the dissociation of submarine methane hydrates, but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain.

You would go all in with what those people (IPCC) are saying? How many times have they updated their previous assessment because they were way off? Yea a few times. You would lose all your money funny.

As soon as I see any of those re-assessments start pointing toward a cooling world, I'll worry about my bets. But so far that hasn't happened. And--silly denialist fantasies of an imminent ice age notwithstanding--there's absolutely nothing in science to indicate that it will in the future. Nothing.

Quoting Neapolitan:Oh, I so wish there was a way to put money on this; I'd go all-in on the IPCC prediction without so much as a moment's hesitation. Of course, Morner isn't likely to be around to pay off; he'll be 102 in 2040 if still alive. But I plan on being here, when we'll all look back at predictions like Morner's with a curious mixture of nostalgia, and resentment over just how very wrong he and others of his ilk were.

You would go all in with what those people (IPCC) are saying? How many times have they updated their previous assessment because they were way off? Yea a few times. You would lose all your money funny.

That being said, I think it is very difficult to make comparisons to today's climate to that of 500 million years ago. To many factors, known and unknown, are different. The fact that CO₂ levels were high while temperatures were low is interesting, but not a deal-breaker for either side in my opinion.

Quoting cat5hurricane:Tom, no need to show all your cards at once. I'm assuming you don't play much Texas Hold Em.

I believe you man. You convinced me. But remember, the debate will never be over. They'll always be disagreements among folks whether or not man has contributed slightly, largely, or none at all to climate change.

I bet you another six pack that I can walk the dog down the street and go no further than six blocks before I encounter some smuck who still thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth. Funny, but it's the truth. Take a timeout for a laugh. Oh, I still owe you that sixpack I promised you before, buddy. I have not forgotten.

lol thanks

I wasn't trying to end the GW debate, I know that won't end. I was trying to put an end to the side debate snowlover and I have been having for over a week now

Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Simulated global temperature in experiments that include human influences (pink line), and model experiments that included only natural factors (blue line). The black line is observed temperature change.

content/uploads/2010/11/robinsonchart.png" style="max-width: 501px; ">Could you list some more feedbacks that co2 creates that either you or me have not listed yet?Snowlover, this argument is going in a circle, and it's getting ridiculous.

Here's everything I found wrong with your arguments in that post

1. CO2 levels have never been 10 times higher than the present values.

Take your pick in whatever graph you'd like, none of them show co2 values ten times the present as you've been claiming

oh wait, here's one

but clearly this image is hoax, as it doesn't even REMOTELY correlate to any of the other co2 graphs.

So your idea that CO2 levels were 10 times higher and temps were cooling, is terribly wrong.

If anything, CO2 levels seem to correlate very well with temperatures.

2. Let's play along with CO2 being 10 times higher. You claim that's what caused the cooling at the time. That's a logical fallacy - false cause. You fail to explain how it's CO2's fault. You say it's the feedback loops, but clearly that isn't true. The total effects of all of CO2's feedback loops has never been proven to be cooling. Some negative feedback loops cause cooling. Other positive feedback loops cause warming. You can't go outright and claim the total of all these is cooling.

3. You seem to believe CO2 and natural oscillations are the only thing which can dictate temperatures on earth.

4. Temperatures began rising around 1850 accoding to your graphs. If you've ever taken a US history course, you would know that this is almost exactly when the industrial revolution began. (in the early 19th century around the 1830s and 1840s is when the revolution is said to have occurred).

5. #4 means that man could of had an impact at this time.

6. You mention desertification as a negative feedback. Cool. That's one down, and dozens more feedback loops to go. You want some? Deforestation, Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, methane release from deep seas, methane release from frozen tundra, melting of glaciers, ocean's dissolving less co2 as a result of warmer temps, etc.

None of these are all perfectly understood, and not to mention there are plenty we are yet to discover.

to finally conclude these ridiculously repetitive discussions..

1. CO2 has never been 10 times the level of present values. Throughout as far back as our ice core samples take us, CO2 levels have, for the most part, correlated very well with temperatures.

2. co2's feedback loops are not understood well enough to say whether or not the total effect of all these feedback loops cancels out the warming created through greenhouse gas theory.

3. ARGO data has not found any climate trends. One study showed warming, the other cooling. Both are studies done from late 03 to 2008 - five years is not enough time.

4. Natural oscillations affect the distribution of heat in Earth's system. This can lead to positive feedbacks to create more warming over the arctic. However, the opposite is also true when the oscillation is in it's opposite phase which can cause positive feedbacks to increase sea ice (ie: some additional ice is formed by cooler temps due to the negative phase. As a result, the ice further cools regional temps by raising albedo. This creates more ice).

Quoting Neapolitan:Oh, I so wish there was a way to put money on this; I'd go all-in on the IPCC prediction without so much as a moment's hesitation. Of course, Morner isn't likely to be around to pay off; he'll be 102 in 2040 if still alive. But I plan on being here, when we'll all look back at predictions like Morner's with a curious mixture of nostalgia, and resentment over just how very wrong he and others of his ilk were.

Oh, I so wish there was a way to put money on this; I'd go all-in on the IPCC prediction without so much as a moment's hesitation. Of course, Morner isn't likely to be around to pay off; he'll be 102 in 2040 if still alive. But I plan on being here, when we'll all look back at predictions like Morner's with a curious mixture of nostalgia, and resentment over just how very wrong he and others of his ilk were.